Then they went on to basically say it had no place in the community and was a menace.

The biggest surprise was Councilwoman Marti Emerald.

She said that she now is representing a new district and therefore is going to be much more conservative about her approach to the issue.

The Democrat used to represent Tierrasanta, San Carlos, etc. Now she represents mostly City Heights and the tony villages of Kensington and Talmadge.

So she arguably went to a more liberal district. Unfortunately for advocates, medical marijuana storefronts are seen as a vice like liquor stores. And community activists in places like City Heights do not need more vice.

Except that residents don’t seem so spooked about cannabis. In 2010, (an election in which conservatives did quite well) a majority of voters in most of the city’s central urban neighborhoods supported legalizing marijuana outright — not just to help people with cancer, but for people who just wanted to smoke it.

Without Emerald, the mayor’s proposal was clearly DOA.

One of the people who spoke in favor of it Monday was this guy, Ken Cole (seen here at an earlier appearance).

Image courtesy of the city of San Diego.

Cole is about as good of a representative of the sector as possible. He runs the only marijuana collective that tried to stay open, and advertising, even after hundreds of his counterparts shut down.

Cole has cancer himself. He said his medical marijuana collective is registered as a not-for-profit. He pays taxes and tries to keep his books in order.

But on Tuesday, a day after he made an emotional plea to the council, the DEA raided his place, One on One on Sixth Avenue Downtown.

Photo by Sam Hodgson

You might think this protestor at the raid is correct:

Photo by Sam Hodgson

But you’d be wrong. At least, according to the federal government.

You see, Cole’s establishment wasn’t having problems with the city. In fact, Cole made a deal with the city.

A couple years ago, the city started cracking down on medical marijuana establishments. City Attorney Jan Goldsmith argued that the city had no zoning code that allowed them. Anywhere. And he won. He made the point then, however, that if the mayor — who controls the police and the city’s code enforcement — did not want to send him any more cases, he wouldn’t go out looking for them.

Then Mayor Bob Filner got into office and took him up on the deal. The police and code enforcement were told to lay off.

That got some of the dispensaries that the city had gone after a bit mad. If dispensaries like Cole’s were suddenly going to be left alone, then they had been treated unfairly. And their lawyers wanted money from the city for all the trouble.

Cole said he wouldn’t demand any money and the city agreed to drop its case with him.

The feds, and their assistants from the Sheriff’s Department, were not inclined to leave him alone.

It would be a mistake to interpret my comments as a softening of our position. I have made it clear many times that under federal law, marijuana is illegal, period. My reference to state law was intended to help explain that profit is one of many factors we consider when exercising our prosecutorial discretion.

For what it’s worth, Cole says he’s running a not-for-profit as compliant with state law as he can be.

“I’m not trying to make money. To say we’re not a not for profit is ludicrous. We have never hidden anything,” Cole told me.

He said he even pays his employees well. These guys, who were trying to digest the raid Tuesday:

Photo by Sam Hodgson

And so goes the marijuana confusion.

It’s legal but it’s not. We want to provide access to it, but we don’t. You can give it out compassionately and not for profit but actually you can’t.

It will only get weirder.

Thank you to Sam Hodgson for the photos of the raid.

I’m Scott Lewis, the CEO of Voice of San Diego. Please contact me if you’d like at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org or 619.325.0527 and follow me on Twitter (it’s a blast!):

WELL PUT, Scott Lewis (and kudos to Sam Hodgson on the photos). San Diego City Council ignores history and enforces Federal Prohibition that the President says isn't a priority and many voters rejected in 2010 CA vote on legalization. U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy wages jihad on patients and providers rather than corrupt defense contractors and banks. Fair fight, huh?

WELL PUT, Scott Lewis (and kudos to Sam Hodgson on the photos). San Diego City Council ignores history and enforces Federal Prohibition that the President says isn't a priority and many voters rejected in 2010 CA vote on legalization. U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy wages jihad on patients and providers rather than corrupt defense contractors and banks. Fair fight, huh?

I also think it’s ironic that pot advocates try to legitimize the weed with the claim that it’s no more dangerous (maybe less) than booze or cigarettes, two perfectly legal, widely distributed products. Hell, it’s no more dangerous than arsenic, either.

I also think it’s ironic that pot advocates try to legitimize the weed with the claim that it’s no more dangerous (maybe less) than booze or cigarettes, two perfectly legal, widely distributed products. Hell, it’s no more dangerous than arsenic, either.

I'd like to know what the Feds & the SD Sherrif Dept are doing with all the medical records that they haul away in these raids. Any files on clients of these dispensaries are going to contain PHI, Protected Health Information, that is protected under HIPAA regulations. What do they plan to do with that information???

I'd like to know what the Feds & the SD Sherrif Dept are doing with all the medical records that they haul away in these raids. Any files on clients of these dispensaries are going to contain PHI, Protected Health Information, that is protected under HIPAA regulations. What do they plan to do with that information???

Despite all the hype being drummed by the pro-dope crowd and local media types looking to hang a story on it, the situation regarding marijuana in San Diego is very clear, as it is in the rest of the country. Possession or sale of marijuana is AGAINST FEDERAL LAW. End of story. While state and local politicians (and some local editors) love to blow a lot of smoke on the subject, as long as its against the law, federal law enforcement agencies will continue to bust drug dealers, regardless of what they call themselves. Regardless of what dope promoters claim, unless they convince congress to repeal existing laws, they're just blabbering among themselves. And local media types are wasting ink writing about it.

Despite all the hype being drummed by the pro-dope crowd and local media types looking to hang a story on it, the situation regarding marijuana in San Diego is very clear, as it is in the rest of the country. Possession or sale of marijuana is AGAINST FEDERAL LAW. End of story. While state and local politicians (and some local editors) love to blow a lot of smoke on the subject, as long as its against the law, federal law enforcement agencies will continue to bust drug dealers, regardless of what they call themselves. Regardless of what dope promoters claim, unless they convince congress to repeal existing laws, they're just blabbering among themselves. And local media types are wasting ink writing about it.

Sully is absolutely wrong about the City Council meeting. I was there. The overwhelming majority of the room was in favor of Bob filner's medical marijuana guidelines. The speakers were about 2/3 in favor and 1/3 against. So no, the city council meeting audience makeup did not reflect any disapproval of the mayor's plan.

I never said that any of the victories were false. By comparing issues vs. candidates you're comparing apples to oranges which makes no sense. All I said was that due to the fact that many people who dislike gov't don't vote anymore that there are a significant number of people out there who could help to stop enforcement of bad laws (jury nullification). I've no idea where you got the idea that I thought that the elections were somehow false.

I never said that any of the victories were false. By comparing issues vs. candidates you're comparing apples to oranges which makes no sense. All I said was that due to the fact that many people who dislike gov't don't vote anymore that there are a significant number of people out there who could help to stop enforcement of bad laws (jury nullification). I've no idea where you got the idea that I thought that the elections were somehow false.

Personally, I think that nullification is the only hope for those that want MJ and Hemp legalized. It's too controversial politically to win at the federal level, but if enough of a percentage of people is in favor of legalization then in theory there would be enough votes on juries to prevent prosecution and conviction. People that are so fed up with gov't that that they don't vote anymore can still serve on juries. Therefore the prop 19 vote is not a true indication of the percentage of people that want to legalize.

Personally, I think that nullification is the only hope for those that want MJ and Hemp legalized. It's too controversial politically to win at the federal level, but if enough of a percentage of people is in favor of legalization then in theory there would be enough votes on juries to prevent prosecution and conviction. People that are so fed up with gov't that that they don't vote anymore can still serve on juries. Therefore the prop 19 vote is not a true indication of the percentage of people that want to legalize.

Sully you are just drawing an arbitrary line in the sand. An 18 year old can have cancer. Children can have cancer. In my experience I have seen that adults are just as likely as teens to try to get prescriptions for pain and other minor ailments. By the way, an 18 year old is technically an adult, and is old enough to be forced to serve in the military under the threat of imprisonment. The nuisance comment is purely opinion. I've been to similar hearings where it seemed about 50/50 for and against.

Sully you are just drawing an arbitrary line in the sand. An 18 year old can have cancer. Children can have cancer. In my experience I have seen that adults are just as likely as teens to try to get prescriptions for pain and other minor ailments. By the way, an 18 year old is technically an adult, and is old enough to be forced to serve in the military under the threat of imprisonment. The nuisance comment is purely opinion. I've been to similar hearings where it seemed about 50/50 for and against.

Yes,lets continue this prohibition on a plant, we all saw how well that worked on alcohol. People of this age look back on alcohol prohibition and most say what were we crazy to do such a thing. I'm wagering that in twenty years or less the next generation will look back and say the same thing, what were we crazy. In fact this whole "war on drugs" has been quite a success, hasn't it? How many young lives have been ruined by this war, how much tax money has been spent? All for what? Didn't prohibition teach us anything? Like, take out the profit and the gangsters will fold like a cheap suit. Regulate and tax and you can control it and collect a lot of taxes.

Yes,lets continue this prohibition on a plant, we all saw how well that worked on alcohol. People of this age look back on alcohol prohibition and most say what were we crazy to do such a thing. I'm wagering that in twenty years or less the next generation will look back and say the same thing, what were we crazy. In fact this whole "war on drugs" has been quite a success, hasn't it? How many young lives have been ruined by this war, how much tax money has been spent? All for what? Didn't prohibition teach us anything? Like, take out the profit and the gangsters will fold like a cheap suit. Regulate and tax and you can control it and collect a lot of taxes.

This saddens me. Thanks to Sam for showing up and taking photos. The images tell the story so well. Thanks to Scott for explaining the who the what and the why of it, such as it is, nonsensical and unjust. I hope this story gets spread far and wide.

This saddens me. Thanks to Sam for showing up and taking photos. The images tell the story so well. Thanks to Scott for explaining the who the what and the why of it, such as it is, nonsensical and unjust. I hope this story gets spread far and wide.

A nonprofit is allowed to make a profit on goods (i.e. charge a customer more than costs, in order to run the business). In other words, the storefront, as a nonprofit, is not required to GIVE AWAY its product. It's a nonprofit because it is formed to benefit the collective good and does not have shareholders. I hope the U.S. Attorney realizes this diffference.

A nonprofit is allowed to make a profit on goods (i.e. charge a customer more than costs, in order to run the business). In other words, the storefront, as a nonprofit, is not required to GIVE AWAY its product. It's a nonprofit because it is formed to benefit the collective good and does not have shareholders. I hope the U.S. Attorney realizes this diffference.

So why are the feds only doing this in CA? They seem to have escalated swat terror tactics here as a last ditch effort to thwart public will and keep their lucrative thiefdom going. Shame on our local officials and law enforcement agencies for supporting this outrageous police state action in direct violation of the public will.

So why are the feds only doing this in CA? They seem to have escalated swat terror tactics here as a last ditch effort to thwart public will and keep their lucrative thiefdom going. Shame on our local officials and law enforcement agencies for supporting this outrageous police state action in direct violation of the public will.